Reminds me of the Fermat numbers F(n). They are prime for n=0,1,2,3,4 and Fermat conjectured that they're prime for all n. Euler disproved this by showing that F(5)=4,294,967,297=641×6,700,417.pic.twitter.com/1skY3AxACq
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Reminds me of the Fermat numbers F(n). They are prime for n=0,1,2,3,4 and Fermat conjectured that they're prime for all n. Euler disproved this by showing that F(5)=4,294,967,297=641×6,700,417.pic.twitter.com/1skY3AxACq
Euler's Library then?
For n =
8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433,
GCD(n^17 + 9, (n + 1)^17 + 9) =
8936582237915716659950962253358945635793453256935559

Maybe related to instability in fluid dynamics? Holds true for an amount of time until falls apart into chaos
Those Reynolds number are capricious.
n¹⁷+9 and n¹⁷+10 are always coprime. Ok that was just for fun lol
Another example of the weak law of small numbers. Or not so small ...
Relatively is an important word.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.